GMOs: A Case for Bilateral Education

Since their introduction, GMOs have become a source of contention internationally.  Stakeholders in the debate approach the subject with varying value systems that often conflict.  Shiva's argument demonstrates that differences in value systems between the North and South, specifically in India can lead to increased conflict between the North and South.  In her argument against GMOs, Shiva identifies many practices and values held by small farmers and women that she believes are ignored by those pushing for increased industrialization and genetic engineering.  These views not only progress her argument but serve as an example of Thursday's discussion regarding the importance of education between the North and South when debating complex environmental issues.

Through her argument, Shiva expresses India's cultural devotion to promoting biodiversity and feeding the people through biodiversity.  This cultural value conflicts with perceived Northern attempts to push GMOs to promote the production of a single crop and ultimately destroy biodiversity.  This relates to class discussion of trying to make changes in developing countries without taking the time to learn about the culture beforehand.  Because biodiversity is a main component in the production of food in India, this should have been taken into account before the introduction of GMOs to evaluate if they would do more harm than good.  Increased collaboration and education could help establish whether or not these views are shared by all people in India and if so how this cultural value can be respected.

Shiva discusses the view that golden rice is necessary for reducing vitamin A deficiency in India.  However, she believes that without extensive reliance on herbicides and industrial processes, women and small farmers in India can produce enough vitamin A to serve the same purpose.  This illustrates how small farmers and women in developing nations may view agricultural innovation differently than developed nations. Where the North may view golden rice as the key to eliminating blindness, the South can view the development of the same rice as an unnecessary burden that ultimately leads to increased poverty.  This component of the GMO debate could benefit from increased education on both sides of the issue.  As discussed in class, it can often be ineffective to attempt to fit a solution to a group of people without taking their individual values into account.  Instead, when considering golden rice as a solution to vitamin A deficiency, it could be more helpful to not only educate the people in the region but also to learn from the people already living in the area.

Shiva's argument regarding the production of women and small farmers demonstrates how value systems can vary and lead to increased polarization.  This disagreement could stem from diverging definitions of productivity between the North and South.  Where the North may view the work of women as unproductive and economically inefficient, developing nations like India, may view the production of women and small farmers as a main food source in the country.  Though the people may be told that without GMOs the people of India will starve, many native Indians may value the work of women and small farmers in feeding the people. Increased Northern education about native people could lead to a better understanding of the concerns of small farmers and those who rely on the food they produce.

Increasing international environmental education and embracing a spirit of collaboration and understanding could potentially help ease some tensions between the North and South in environmental debates.  This view does not assume that increased collaboration and education on both sides will eliminate all conflict.  There could still be debate over conflicting values and framing of issues.  However, when debating environmental issues like GMOs, this collaboration has a better chance of leading to compromise by at least educating each side on the views of the opposing side.